Credit Card Case Study

These case studies are here to provide some examples of what other have done to tackle the widespread fraudulent 'lending' conducted by the banks and credit card companies. The approach used here is based on the guidance provided by The Bernician on his website, a link to which may be found in the acknowledgments section. In this example the credit card payments were up to date and the account was not overdrawn. The message you are sending to the bank or card provider is that you are happy to discharge any debt that you lawfully owe and that the card provider can prove you are obliged to.

Please do not simply copy and paste these documents but use whatever resonates to create your own personalised versions, if you decide to tackle these cowboys. Please do not send anything to anybody unless you are confident that you have understood it and can explain it to a third party. If you are a joint account holder, you should only do this if you are in agreement with your partner. If you are afraid of what the consequences might be, you should wait until you have removed that fear; until then you are advised not to do this.

In this case, an initial letter was sent to the card provider, as below, offering to pay.

Letter 1.

Account Number: ............

Account Holder: M.......

We write on behalf of the above-named legal account holder as it has come to our attention that there may be some defects with the credit card loan arrangement documentation and that payments made to your organization were made in error and without full disclosure.

We would be willing to settle any financial obligation we might lawfully owe once we have received answers to the following questions to enable us to validate the alleged debt.

Please provide answers to the following questions within thirty (30) days:

1. When we agree to a loan and accepted by XXX Bank has that created a trust?

2. If a trust has been created by my client’s autograph/agreement what are the roles (fiduciary duties) of the XXX Bank and myself within this trust?

3. In transactions is it not the case XXX Bank is acting in the capacity of “Trustee?”

4. Is an “agreement” signed by my client a financial instrument?

5. Can a financial instrument be securitized?

6. What lawful consideration does XXX Bank give when agreeing a loan?

7. What creates the “source” of funds XXX Bank claims it lends?

8. If XXX Bank did not loan it’s own money to a customer, but monetised the signed loan document creating new funds on the account, would this not be an exchange rather than a loan?

9.Does XXX Bank accept promissory notes and if so, how would we go about presenting one for acceptance?

10. Does XXX Bank accept something of value from the borrower that is recorded as an asset on the books of XXX Bank resulting in a new liability?

11.Did XXX Bank loan/lend the borrower XXX Bank's own pre-existing money or assets?

12.Did XXX Bank add interest to the borrowers own promissory note/agreement/contract?

13.What equitable value/consideration did XXXBank give in return for the borrower’s promissory note/agreement/contract?

14.Is it true that, according to the bookkeeping entries, the borrower funds the loan?

15.Is it true according to XXX Bank’s bookkeeping entries the borrower is the depositor therefore the creditor of the principal amount?

16.Has the loan agreement / contract been sold to a special Purpose entity for securitisation and pooled into tranches with other mortgages?

We wish to deal with this matter in writing and I do not give your organization permission to contact me by telephone, or by any other means. Should you do so, we must warn you that the calls could constitute ‘harassment’ and I may take action under Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Administration of Justice Act 1970 S.40, which makes it a Criminal Offence for a creditor or a creditor’s agent to make demands (for money), which are aimed at causing ‘alarm, distress or humiliation’, because of their frequency or manner.

With sincerity and honour,

By:

Authorised representative:

In this case the card provider replied as if the card holder had complained as had not been making payments. This illustrates not only the low levels of competence you are likely to encounter when dealing with these functionaries but also how they attempt to lure you into controversy. We now start writing notices as opposed to letters, as these carry more weight in law. The principle is to be as clear as possible, so there is no room for misinterpretation. The response to the card provider was therefore a Notice, as follows:

Notice 1.

======================================

NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE UPON VALIDATION OF CLAIM

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL; NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

WITHOUT PREDJUDICE

Dear <CEO Name>,

Account Number: ...........................

Account Holder: M....................................

We write as a living (wo)man on behalf of the above-named legal account holder, following your Banking Team’s unsigned ‘letter’ dated xxx, received on xxx. That ‘letter’ was in response to our conditional offer of payment which was dated xxx and appears to be a presentment, although it was not written in plain English as used and understood by living (wo)men.

Please take note that we do not wish to accept any actual or implied offer to contract with you in this matter.

We note that your ‘letter’ completely ignored the reasonable questions asked in our previous letter and provided no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that any alleged debt existed.

We further note that the fact that the ‘letter’ included statements implying that the account was subject to a complaint; we have simply offered to repay the alleged debt once it has been lawfully validated. Obfuscation of this nature may be deemed a deception under the Fraud Act 2006.

We note that when nobody signs a presentment letter there can be no personal commercial liability. This is why we are writing and issuing this Notice to you in your personal capacity.

We wish to deal with this matter honourably and therefore again ask you to provide evidence of a valid contract signed by both parties, confirming bilateral consent, together with a copy of the relevant GAAP / IFRS / BASEL III bookkeeping entry confirming that your bank lent it’s own funds and didn’t simply securitise our promissory note. This is so we have confirmation of equitable consideration and full disclosure.

To be clear, we will undertake to settle any financial obligation we might lawfully owe on the alleged debt on the condition that we received from you the following documentation. Please note we require ALL documentation to be presented in SUBSTANCE and with FULL DISCLOSURE:

(a) Validation of the alleged debt owed with FULL ACCOUNTING

(b) A copy of the relevant and lawful Terms and Conditions

(c) A true and certified copy (NOT photocopy) of the Original Credit Agreement.

We wish to deal with this matter in writing and do not give your organisation permission to contact us by telephone, or by any other means. Should you do so, we must warn you that the calls could constitute ‘harassment’ and we may take action under Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Administration of Justice Act 1970 S.40, which makes it a Criminal Offence for a creditor or a creditor’s agent to make demands (for money), which are aimed at causing ‘alarm, distress or humiliation’, because of their frequency or manner.

We hereby give you fourteen (14) days to reply to this notice from the above date. Your failure to provide the aforementioned documentation within fourteen (14) days, from the above date to validate your claim of debt, will constitute your agreement that the debt did not exist in the first instance; and that you will be held liable for any and all damages to me incurred by any further actions. This includes negative remarks made to any credit reference agency.

With sincerity and honour, etc.

Once again the response from the card provider was predictable. They have nothing to validate any presumed debt, so they can either ignore you and hope you give up, attempt to deceive you to you into controversy by pretending you have complained, or threaten you. Often it will be a combination of the last two, as was the case here. The response to the card provider was therefore a further Notice, as well as an affidavit (a statement of truth) as follows:

===========================================

I write as a living woman on behalf of the above-named legal account holder, following your agent's letter dated ......

As was the case with our previous letter, this communication was written in legalese, contained incorrect statements (in breach of generally accepted fair and reasonable business practices and the Law) veiled threats, and did not answer our reasonable questions. It attempts to drag us into controversy by framing our communication as a complaint. This appears to be a deception under the Fraud Act 2006 Section 2. Given the fact that our account is up to date, the letter is deemed dishonourable. Accordingly, you have both been Noticed.

You are advised not to ignore this Notice.

Should however you decide to ignore this Notice it will become the truth in law as an unrebutted Affidavit.

1. Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit. See Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev. 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matt. 5:33; James 5:12.

2. An unrebutted Affidavit stands as truth in commerce. See 1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15.

If you consider that all the lawful elements that are essential to the creation of a contract i.e.: offer, acceptance, intention, sufficient and equal consideration, mental and lawful capacity to contract, legality of purpose, genuine consent (knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily), certainty of terms and conditions, were present at the time of the alleged loan you should provide the evidence to support that, noting the comments in the following paragraph.

We draw your attention to The Companies Act 2006, Section 44: “Execution of documents.”

1. Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company-

(a) By the affixing of its common seal, or

(b) By signature in accordance with the following provisions.

2. A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company-

(a) By two authorised signatories, or

(b) By a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

3. The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)-

(a) Every director of the company

(b) In the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

Ignoring this Notice and the enclosed Asseveration and Affidavit may lead to further action in the Chancery Courts; such action could be taken against you both in your personal capacities and could seek remedy for the alleged tortuous frauds that we appear to have been the victim of.

Alternatively, criminal proceedings could be instigated under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 c.27, section 1(1): “Any person who sends to another person (a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys (ii) a threat, (iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender, is guilty of an offence”. A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both); (b) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine (or both). Longer sentences may be applied if any breach has been committed that falls under the Fraud Act 2006 sections 2-4. Section 1 of the Act deals with custodial sentences and comments: “The maximum custodial sentence of 10 years is the same as for the main existing deception offences and for the common law crime of conspiracy to defraud.”

We must reiterate that you should take note that we do not wish to formally instigate a complaint, nor to accept any actual or implied offer to contract with you in this matter. We wish to settle this matter equitably. We therefore again ask you to provide evidence of a valid contract signed by both parties, confirming bilateral consent, together with a copy of the relevant GAAP / IFRS / BASEL III bookkeeping entry confirming that your bank lent it’s own funds and didn’t simply securitise our promissory note. This is so we have confirmation of equitable consideration and full disclosure.

(a) Validation of the alleged debt owed with FULL ACCOUNTING (see notes above).

(b) A copy of the relevant and lawful Terms and Conditions (see notes above).

(c) A true and certified copy (NOT photocopy) of the Original Credit Agreement (see notes above)

We hereby give you fourteen (14) days to reply to this notice from the above date. Your failure to provide the aforementioned documentation within fourteen (14) days, from the above date to validate your claim of debt, will constitute your agreement that the debt did not exist in the first instance; and that you will be held personally liable for any and all damages to us incurred by any further actions. This includes negative remarks made to any credit reference agency.

With sincerity and honour,

encl:

=============================

NON NEGOTIABLE

:name: family name

Address [Post Code]

Affidavit and Asseveration of Truth and Statement of Fact.

Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent and Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal.

Asseveration, non-statutory affidavit.

Fiat Justitia, Ruat Coelum

Let Right Be Done, Though The Heavens Should Fall

Do not ignore this Notice.

FAO: xxx (sometimes acting as Company Secretary) in his / her personal capacity

ABC Bank

Adress

DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE

I :name: family name (hereafter I, we, our, the affiant) am a living (wo)man over the age of consent and of sound mind, described by the Lord God in Genesis 2:7 as a Living Soul, living under God’s law and his grace and purpose alone. I am competent to testify and possess first-hand knowledge of the facts stated herein. The affiant has lawful authority to make the following statements and declarations.

Regarding: Account No: ………………..

Account Holder: ………….

1. In order to validate a loan, there needs to be a lawful written agreement, full disclosure and equitable consideration. We have never been provided with these documents or information to confirm. Despite two written requests (letter dated xxxand a Notice of Conditional Acceptance dated xxxx) ABCBank has been unable to provide answers to the questions raised in those documents which would validate any lawful loan agreement we might have with your bank. The affiant therefore believes that no such evidence exists.

2. Despite our account being fully up to date and not in arrears, ABCBank’s responses have, generally, been vexatious, erroneous, threatening and misleading. This appears to contravene the Protection From Harassment Act 1970 and the Fraud Act 2006.

3. The Misrepresentation Act 1967, Section 7 states: “Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him by another party thereto and as a result thereof he has suffered loss, then, if the person making the misrepresentation would be liable to damages in respect thereof had the misrepresentation been made fraudulently, that person shall be so liable notwithstanding that the misrepresentation was not made fraudulently, unless he proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made the facts represented were true”. There is no evidence to suggest that ABCBank have complied with the requirements of this Act, and the affiant believes that no such evidence exists.

4. No complaint nor any expression of dissatisfaction has been made, yet this matter has been referred to your Complaints team and treated as a complaint. This appears to be a deliberate, dishonourable attempt to create controversy and a unilateral contract, despite our statement that we wish to remain acting in honour and have no wish to contract with you.

5. We regard your course of conduct as harassment. Any action from your agents or representatives which is Oppressive, Unacceptable or Distressful could become an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 c.27, section 1(1).

6. Your letter dated xxxx was not delivered until xxxx; the letter dated xxx was not delivered until xxxx; we consider this to be an unfair business tactic to infer that we have been tardy in our response.

7. Profiteering through deception is an offence under Sections 2-4 of the Fraud Act 2006. The following statements made in your letter dated xxx appear to fall into this category: “We do not accept Promissory notes as payment” and further, the subsequent paragraph referring to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882; both statements are manifestly incorrect at law; in relation to the former, see the High Court ruling by Lord Denning in 1969 which clearly states that promissory notes are to be treated the same as cash (Lord Denning M.R. in Fielding & Platt Ltd v Selim Najjar [1969] 1 W.L.R. 357 at 361; [1969] 2 All E.R. 150 at 152, CA). For the latter, the Consumer Credit Act S123 (5) applies. If you believe yourself to be exempt you should provide the lawful basis for this position.

8. ABCBank states that it will only deal with “qualified solicitors” without providing any explanation or reason. This appears to be at odds with the protections afforded under the Misrepresentation Act 1967. If you believe yourself to be exempt, please provide the lawful basis for this position.

9. ABCBank has not answered the question of what equitable consideration was provided. This is taken as tacit agreement that there is no evidence the bank lent it’s own money.

10. There is no evidence to suggest that ABCBank did not accept an item of value from the affiant that was used to give value to a cheque, electronic transfer or similar instrument, of approximately the same value of the alleged loan, and the affiant believes that no such evidence exists.

11. There is no evidence to suggest that ABC Bank followed UK GAAP (the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles of the United Kingdom) in the execution of the alleged loan(s), and the affiant believes that no such evidence exists.

12. There is no evidence to suggest that all the material facts of the alleged loan agreement have been disclosed to the affiant, and the affiant believes that no such evidence exists.

ABCBank’s failure, both intentional and otherwise, to complete and answer points “1” through “12” above and return this in the form of a signed affidavit, within fourteen (14) days, as well as provide the Affiant with the requisite verification validating the herein-above referenced alleged debt, constitutes ABC Bank’s tacit agreement that it has not and never has had a verifiable, lawful, bona fide claim re the herein above-referenced alleged account.

Your response must be in plain English, not legalese, as understood by living men and women standing under God’s Law. Your rebuttal shall be dated, signed, and witnessed. Your silence stands as consent to, and tacit approval of, the factual declarations herein being established as fact as a matter of law.

The affiant makes this asseveration and affidavit believing conscientiously that all the facts stated herein are true, correct, certain, complete and not in any way misleading and, with first-hand personal knowledge and made under penalty of perjury.

Further affiant say naught

By: :name: family name

Authorised Representative

M…….

Asseverated and executed on this the xxx day, of the xxx month, in the year of our Lord and Saviour, two thousand twenty-two.

1 John 5:7-8, “For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”

Non waived ever.

==========================================

In this case the card holder decided to take out a commercial lien against the CEO of the bank. There are other options, including seeking remedy in the courts or simply resting your case, as you have now got an unrebutted affidavit, which is a statement of truth in law. This shows that you have acted in honour and offered to settle any lawful obligation you might have. Does this stop the card provider taking further action? There is no guarantee, and whilst it might do, it's best to be prepared to continue to deal with their demands for payment. How you do so will depend on your circumstances, but at this stage you could simply return any correspondence unopened (see dealing with fraudulent mail).

Here is a copy of the lien that this card holder issued:

=============================================

Asseveration and Affidavit of Obligation

Commercial Lien

(This is a verified plain statement of fact)

The Parties.

Claimant: xxx, Authorised Representative for M…..

MAILING LOCATION:

Hereinafter known as “Lien Claimant”

Respondents: Company Secretary / CEO ABC Bank Ltd

MAILING LOCATION: ABC Bank registered Office

Hereinafter known as “Lien Debtor”

This affidavit is based on the following maxims:

1. All are equal under the law. See Exodus 21:23-25; Lev. 24:17-21; Deut. 1:17, 19:21; Matt. 22:36-40; Luke 10:17; Col. 3:25.

2. In commerce, truth is sovereign. See Exodus 20:16; Psalms 117:2; John 8:32; II Cor. 13:8.

3. Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit. See Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev. 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matt. 5:33; James 5:12.

4. An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce. See 1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15.

5. A party injured by the fraud of another may claim triple damages, plus the principal. “And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord: Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor, and if I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.” Luke 19:8.

The claimants have been the victims of a fraud carried out by the Lien Debtor and it’s agents. The relevant legislation is contained within the FRAUD ACT 2006.

1 Fraud

(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed on subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).

(2) The sections are –

(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),

(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and

(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).

Private & International Law

UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS

Article 3.8 – Fraud

A party may avoid the contract when it has been led to conclude the contract by the other party’s fraudulent representation, including language, practices, or fraudulent nondisclosure of circumstances which, according to reasonable standards of fair dealing, the latter party should have disclosed.

Article 5.1.3 – Cooperation between the parties

Each party shall cooperate with the other party when such co-operation may reasonably be expected for the performance of that party’s obligations.

Article 7.3.4 – Adequate Assurance of Due Performance

A party who reasonably believes that there will be a fundamental non-performance by the other party may meanwhile withhold its performance. Where this assurance is not provided within a reasonable time the party demanding it may terminate the contract.

Article 7.4.1 – Right to damages

Any non-performance gives the aggrieved party a right to damages either exclusively or in conjunction with any other remedies except where the non-performance is excused under these principles.

Article 7.4.2 – Full compensation

(1) The aggrieved party is entitled to full compensation for harm sustained as a result of the non-performance. Such harm includes both any loss which it suffered and any gain of which it was deprived, taking into account any gain to the aggrieved party resulting from its avoidance of cost or harm

(2) Such harm may be nonpecuniary and includes, for instance, physical suffering and emotional distress.

Allegations.

The following allegations arise from the conduct of the Lien Debtor & the Agents of, indirectly and/or directly, in relation to an alleged agreement between the parties, having regard to CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT NUMBER …………………………….

1. There is no evidence to suggest that a legally enforceable original agreement is in existence between the parties, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

2. There is no evidence to suggest that the allegedly outstanding balance, £…. on the above referenced account can be verified by Lien Debtor, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

3. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor’s valuable consideration pertaining to the alleged debt can be validated upon reasonable request by Lien Claimant, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

4. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor is not in multiple breaches of the Office of Fair Trading’s Final Guidance on Unfair Business Practices (updated December 2006).

5. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor, by its dishonour of Lien Claimant’s NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated xxxx, as well as NOTICE OF DISHONOUR AND NOTICE OF AFFADAVIT OF TRUTH dated xxxx, is not concealing material facts pertaining to any existing and legally enforceable agreement between the parties, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

6. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor lent its own money as adequate consideration to purchase the note (loan agreement) from Lien Claimant, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

7. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Claimant did not provide valuable consideration to fund the alleged loan from Lien Debtor, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

8. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor did not accept an item of value from Lien Claimant that was used to give value to a cheque, electronic transfer or similar instrument, of approximately the same value of the alleged loan, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

9. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor followed UK GAAP (the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles of the United Kingdom) in the execution of the alleged loan(s), and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

10. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor’s chartered accountant and auditor at the time of the alleged loan can confirm that Lien Debtor followed UK GAAP in the execution of the alleged loan, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

11. There is no evidence to suggest that the intent of the alleged loan agreement is that the party who funded the loan is not the party that is to be repaid the money, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

12. There is no evidence to suggest that all the material facts of the alleged loan agreement have been disclosed to Lien Claimant, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

13. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Claimant was obliged to lend the note to Lien Debtor or another financial institution, in order to fund the alleged loan, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

14. There is no evidence to suggest that the original agreement (purported Consumer Credit Act 1974 Agreement) has not been sold, altered or stolen, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

15. There is no evidence to suggest that the alleged borrower (Lien Claimant) did not provide the funds that the alleged lender (Lien Debtor) claims it lent to Lien Claimant, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

16. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor does not owe Lien Claimant a sum of money to the value of Lien Debtor’s invalid claim, plus payments already made to the credit card account, plus the alleged interest outstanding, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

17. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Claimant has not already procured the tacit agreement of Lien Debtor that all of the allegations set forth in this Affidavit are factually correct, true and complete, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

LEDGERING

For the avoidance of doubt, this document is a security interest expressing the value of Lien Claimant’s natural, equitable and legal rights over all the property, income and assets of Lien Debtor, to the value expressed within. Lien Claimant hereby charges this instrument in the sum of £xxxx being the amount paid by Lien Claimant, plus costs of £xxxx. TOTAL LIEN VALUE: GBP £xxxx, subject to additional default charges.

DEFAULT CONDITIONS

Lien Debtor is given 30 days to deliver to Lien Claimant material evidence in support of an appropriate point-for-point rebuttal under oath or affirmation of the foregoing allegations. Failure to repudiate or rebut with material evidence every allegation made will result in Lien Debtor becoming immediately liable for the payment of £xxx. Triple Damages of £xxxx will also be added to the debt if Lien Debtor’s default is not cured. In the event that it is not cured within 90 days, Lien Debtor becomes liable for Exemplary Damages following NOTICE OF DEFAULT.

AFFIRMATION

I, Name, authorised representative for Mxxxx (Lien Claimant), hereby affirm upon my own unlimited commercial liability and under penalty of perjury, that I have read all of the contents of this Affidavit of Obligation, and to the very best of my knowledge, I believe that the facts expressed herein are true, correct and complete.

Executed by: name:family name

Authorised Representative for Mxxxx

ASSEVERATION AND VERIFICATION

Asseverated and executed on this the xth day, of the xth month, in the year of our Lord and Saviour, two thousand twenty-two.

1 John 5:7-8, “For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”

For and on behalf of the principal legal embodiment by the title Mxxx

Signed & Sealed By: __________________________________________

NOTICE is hereby given that the Lien Debtor has thirty (30) days after receipt of this Affidavit of Obligation to rebut, deny, or otherwise prove invalid the allegations contained herein. Failure to rebut, deny or otherwise disprove any of the allegations will be construed as Lien Debtors’ affirmation that said allegations have been proven to be true, correct and complete.

Void where prohibited by law.

Errors & Omissions Excepted

====================================================

The most likely outcome at this point is that your Notices will be ignored and that the card provider will continue to act as if nothing has happened. They will never acknowledge that you have made a case as this would set a precedent. So, you have to decide what your objective is with this process. There is no correct answer. In this case, the card holder sent a further Notice and a fee schedule:

==============================================

NOTICE OF FEES AND YOUR ADDITIONAL PERSONAL LIABILITY

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL; NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT.

WITHOUT PREDJUDICE

DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE

Dear <CEO Name>

Account Number: ......................

Account Holder: M...................................

Pursuant to the clearly expressed terms of the NOTICE OF LIEN AND NOTICE OF SECURITY INTEREST dated xxxx, your organisation has continued to dishonourably demand payments without having any legal contract or signed bill. The latest example is the criminally fraudulent communication from xxx dated xxxxx.

As explained in my previous Notices, this modus operandi is unlawful and it has now reached a stage where it is clear your organisation has no regard for due process and acts as if the law is somehow extraneous; more an organised crime syndicate than a respectable financial institution. You appear to have mislaid your copy of the FCA Handbook, or perhaps you’ve forgotten what it looks like. You might want to have a glance through Chapter 2 and take on board the principles it sets out in 2.1. Once you have done that, you can deal with my enclosed Notice and fee schedule; the costs referred to on Page 4 of the Commercial Lien, dated xxxxxxxxxxxx, are now increased by £150.00 and should be settled by yourselves promptly to avoid additional default charges.

A copy of the aforementioned Lien is attached; you may have calculated that you can safely ignore this and all the other similar Liens you’ve no doubt been served with. You will, at some stage in the not-to-distant future, discover that things have changed and your misdemeanours will be analysed and accounted for. Perhaps you already know; the truth can only be kept in the dark for so long.

A Notice and schedule of fees is enclosed; I reserve the right to invoice anyone within your criminal organisation who issues any further flippant or unlawful demands or unsubstantiated claims against myself or my legal fiction; please seek advice before pursuing me further.

With sincerity and honour,

==============================================

The outcome of this case remains unclear; the card holder now returns all correspondence and the card provider sends automated texts and makes automated phone calls. At no point does the card provider ever sign anything or tell you that you have an obligation to pay a sum of money; this would make that individual liable and it's why nothing is ever signed. Typically, the texts will say something like: "your account in arrears. Please contact us urgently." In summary, you are now engaged with a robot, which you can ignore.